Last night, it was like Twitter had a stroke. Tens of thousands of sports writers, bloggers, fans and general morons were going bananas over the reports that Chris Paul had been traded to the Los Angeles Lakers. The first report, which could have caused riots if true, described the trade as a straight-up deal between the Lakers – giving up Lamar Odom and Pau Gasol – and New Orleans Hornets for Chris Paul. Had that been true, David Stern and Hornets GM Dell Demps would probably be in hiding right now.

Then the correction came in – Andrew Bynum and Odom for Chris Paul. A little better, but still nonsense in the eyes of most middle market fans. That couldn’t be the best deal the Hornets could get, and thankfully it wasn’t. The final, actual deal came in – Paul to the Lakers, Gasol to the Houston Rockets, and Odom, Kevin Martin, Goran Dragic and Luis Scola to the Hornets. Even then, nobody was pleased, and it turns out the league owners were the least pleased of all, because they said, “F*ck a bunch of that” and within two hours this blockbuster was squashed.

Why, you ask? Well, it’s complicated.

Some owners pushed Stern to nullify the trade and that the Hornets be made to keep Paul on the roster for the foreseeable future, sources said. A chorus of owners were irate with the belief that the five-month lockout had happened largely to stop big-market teams from leveraging small-market teams for star players pending free agency.

The owners were definitely irate, because this seemed like Stern’s business-as-usual, “I’ll do whatever the hell I want” sort of deal. When it came across the tickers, I asked where the owner outrage was. But I also didn’t actually expect anyone to speak up, because the whole point of taking 9% of the income away from the players was to reward the owners of the 22 teams that lost money by kissing their boo-boos and covering them with green Band-Aids.

But the most delightful thing about this trade being squashed is that Stern is taking all the credit for killing it, as he declared that it was voided for “basketball reasons.” Of course, that means nothing to Lakers fans, who now have to wonder if this is going to happen to them during every deal. And no, it won’t. It’s only going to happen to the Lakers every time they try to bully a small market team into forking over a superstar. Especially when that small market team is owned and operated by the league.

If Lakers fans want to flash their anger at anyone, it should be the Miami Heat and Carmelo Anthony. They’re not the reasons the lockout happened, but they’re certainly the reason that it dragged out. Gone are the players with hearts of steel, brave enough to take on the world and the league with a cast of supporting characters. Here today are the spoiled brats, the hired guns mentalities and a bunch of BFFs that want to win together. There’s not anything wrong with the last two, but there aren’t enough guns to go around.

Ultimately, this is mostly Anthony’s fault, because he showed the rest of the stars that they can dictate their destinations before their free agency time even arrives. The Golden State Warriors could offer a deal centered around Stephen Curry for Paul and it would be meaningless because Paul won’t sign an extension there. He’ll only sign the extension in New York, L.A or possibly Orlando. How is that fair to anyone? Better yet, how does that solve the entire point of the lockout – competitive balance?

You can say that the Hornets’ return on this trade was fair, that they were receiving a quality veteran with three capable components to build around. You could say that Houston was getting the big man the Rockets so desperately need, and then I’d argue they should have just tried to sign Nene, but if you’re really that upset that this trade didn’t happen, don’t be. Because it’s going to happen soon enough. Stern will make sure of it.

I don’t know why an aging big man would help bring anyone in. Then again, I also live by the mantra that if the team agreed to do it, then it should be done. It’s just a shame that a player can act like a free agent before he is actually a free agent and then the league can punish his team for it.

“Gone are the players with hearts of steel, brave enough to take on the world and the league with a cast of supporting characters. Here today are the spoiled brats, the hired guns mentalities and a bunch of BFFs that want to win together.”

What fantasy world do you live in? NBA championships have almost always been won by building a core of 2-3 superstars put together through trades. The majority of those titles are won by big market teams. And now all of a sudden the players are “spoiled brats”?

I don’t know what makes you decide to infantilize grown men for making business decisions about their careers, but I look forward to your upcoming angry rant about how Pixar was founded by a bunch of pussies who couldn’t make it on their own and decided to get together with their BFFs.

Maybe I’m being a bit extreme, but those old teams benefited from a smaller talent pool. Those stars came together because that’s what happened. Now these guys are like, Fuck it, I’m not carrying the load. It’s not a matter of stars playing together. It’s stars not wanting to be leaders. And I don’t fault them for making business decisions. I respect the Heat for what they did. But I don’t respect guys who drag their feet and punish their current franchises because they don’t want to honor their contracts. Business decisions are made by free agents. Paul isn’t a free agent. Carmelo wasn’t a free agent. But they acted like it.

And the Pixar rant will obviously be over at FilmDrunk, but it might take some time if I have to respond to people who get upset about me pointing out that the NBA isn’t fun when all the talent is pushed to four teams.

Also, you can’t use two-star teams as an example, because they’re my main point. The Heat aren’t a two-star team. The Knicks are trying to become what the Heat are. The Lakers are trying to keep up with the Heat. Guys like Paul and Dwight should be like Wade, bring guys to them. Unfortunately, Dwight can’t get anyone to Orlando, but that doesn’t mean he should be able to dictate where he’ll be traded if that team isn’t offering the best deal.

My point is basically about attitude. I miss guys like Iverson who said, Fuck it, I’ll do it myself. Sure, it failed, but it was better than, “He’s my best friend, I want to play with him! Screw your team!” I blame the Olympics.

And yes, I do live in a fantasy world. In my fantasy world, the NBA has 30 teams and each of them have a chance to succeed. In my fantasy world, the commissioner doesn’t run a team and allow for its stars to be traded to the top market team because it needs to reload. Call me unrealistic, but even as a fan of a small market team, I’m still allowed to think my team should have a chance.

“I think Burnsy’s point is that the players are dictating how teams are built instead of the owners.”

Both parts of this theory are just not true. Neither side has dictatorial powers over how teams are built, nor should they. The players are professional basketball players with every right to act in their own best interests when signing contracts to ply their trade. The owners also have their own interests at heart (money, popularity, winning, what-have-you) when deciding which players to sign. The reason I react so negatively to posts like this one are the idea that the players are, as Burnsy put it, “spoiled brats” who say “He’s my best friend, I want to play with him!” is put forth as the reason such decisions are made. First off, these are grown men maximizing the amount of money, fame, and fun that they can get in a 5-15 year window in which they get to play basketball for a living. There no reason at all that they shouldn’t do this within the CBA. Second, this sort of thing has been happening since the NBA was created. This is nothing new in any way, shape, or form.

My guess is that you are against the basic concept of free agency if you opposed this deal. Paul is leaving next year, by all accounts. Why shouldn’t he have the decency to tell his employer this so that they can try to get some value from him now?

I admit as a Lakers fan I had a small panic attack, if only because I think the NBA owners hammered Stern into shutting down the deal because they all have a stake in the Hornets and don’t want to let LA create another SuperFriends.

“Better yet, how does that solve the entire point of the lockout – competitive balance? ”

That was never the actual point of the lockout. It was entirely a move by owners to use their superior leverage to force the players to take a smaller cut of the overall action. All the changes that supposedly help “competitive balance” are smoke and mirrors to distract the players and public from the fact that it was always all about the owners making more money.

And sadly, it will probably happen all over again in 6 years when the NBA has the option to opt out of the deal they just signed, and decides they can push the players even further.

ESPN, for once, is full of excellent analysis of this decision. Simmons and Wilbon both have very good columns today about the absurdity of this. One particularly nice bit of writing by Wilbon is:

“What eats at many NBA owners is this: They aren’t NFL owners. They don’t share a big enough cut of the revenues. They don’t have an unending stream of television money. Their arenas aren’t at about 95 percent capacity. They aren’t a national obsession. And their small-market teams aren’t flush, in most cases, like the Packers or Steelers are. They can’t just cut players and get rid of their salaries, which aren’t guaranteed in the NFL. They want control, big control, like the NFL teams have and they don’t. They don’t want the LeBrons and D-Wades hooking up on their own terms.”

Don’t forget, LA would have also OPENED $21 million in salary cap in that trade! My favorite quote from one of the owners in an email to Stern “Why don’t we just name 25 of 29 teams the Washington Generals”

I’m not sure how the NBA business side works as I am a casual fan. But, if they would just switch to a hard cap and have a floor cap, there would be more competitive balance. Also, moving the Grizzles to Memphis was a dumb fucking idea.

Small market teams can compete in the NBA, it’s just that a) you have to be really lucky and b) most owners are too braindead to realize it. With contracts being so regimented, stars can get the same amount of money from any team, and so they choose big markets. Small market teams need to draft well (and luck into a star) and then build a contending team such that stars will want to stay. SEE: THE OKLAHOMA CITY THUNDER. They got Kevin Durant, then built the team shrewdly into what is now one of the best in the Western Conference. Durant could try and force his way out, BUT his team is good enough that they get attention despite their tiny market. If you don’t make your star happy, he’s going to leave, and with money being the same everywhere, he’s going to a big market.
As for the Paul trade, the Hornets got a GREAT deal out of it, much better than forcing Paul to stay and then him leaving in July and getting nothing in return. If the Hornets had a championship roster, he would stay. If not, he’s leaving. And since the Hornets have been content with David West and no one else to surround Paul, now it’s too late. Better to trade him and get the pieces to make the playoffs instead of just lose him. Sucks for the small markets, but that’s the reality they’re in now.